Democratic Bumper Stickers for 2008

[Autonomous]

LMAO, any 14 year old can come up with a better argument than that.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

A near-60 year old using LMAO? Now I've seen everything.

[Guest 2smart4u]

A near-60 year old using LMAO? Now I've seen everything.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Lead a sheltered life, do you ?

[Guest Guest]

No, age is my e-x-c-u-s-e, stupidity appears to be yours.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm SHOCKED!

You can actually attempt asinine comments other than your standard Kool-Aid stupidity. You may actually be a bit brighter than BushWanker, but then again, so is a manhole cover.

[Guest Guest]

Lead a sheltered life, do you ?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Judging by your screen name and your posts, how do you expect anyone to ever take you seriously?

[Autonomous]

Lead a sheltered life, do you ?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No, I just don't know anyone over the age of 16 who uses 'LMAO.'

[Guest 2smart4u]

No, I just don't know anyone over the age of 16 who uses 'LMAO.'

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, you learned something new. Way to go !!

[Guest Make Fun of Republicans, But ...]

NEW DEMOCRATIC BUMPER STICKERS FOR '08:

1. Bush: End of an Error

2. That's OK, I Wasn't Using My Civil Liberties Anyway

3. Let's Fix Democracy in this Country First

4. If You Want a Nation Ruled By Religion, Move to Iran.

5. Bush. Like a Rock. Only Dumber.

6. If You Can Read This, You're Not Our President

7. Of Course It Hurts: You're Getting Screwed by an Elephant

8. Hey, Bush Supporters: Embarrassed Yet?

9. George Bush: Creating the Terrorists Our Kids Will Have to Fight

10. Impeachment: It's Not Just for Blowjobs Anymore

11. America: One Nation, Under Surveillance

12. They Call Him "W" So He Can Spell It

13. Whose God Do You Kill For?

14. Jail to the Chief

15. No, Seriously, Why Did We Invade Iraq?

16. Bush: God's Way of Proving Intelligent Design is Full Of Crap

17. Bad President! No Banana.

18. We Need a President Who's Fluent In At Least One Language

19. We're Making Enemies Faster Than We Can Kill Them

20. Is It Vietnam Yet?

21. Bush Doesn't Care About White People, Either

22. Where Are We Going? And Why Are We In This Handbasket?

23. You Elected Him. You Deserve Him.

24. Dubya, Your Dad Shoulda Pulled Out, Too

25. When Bush Took Office, Gas Was $1.46

26. Pray For Impeachment

27. The Republican Party: Our Bridge to the 11th Century

28. What Part of "Bush Lied" Don't You Understand?

29. One Nation Under Clod

30. 2004: Embarrassed. 2005: Horrified. 2006: Terrified

31. Bush Never Exhaled

32. At Least Nixon Resigned

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Worst part about this list is that it explains EXACTLY what is wrong with the Democratic Party. John Stewart of the Daily Show hit it on the head a few months back by stating that we "don't stand for anything". Bill Maher hinted at the same thing when he said that while he doesn't agree with the Republican agenda, "at least they have one." Democrats have no agenda.

The last round of campaigning was on the platform, "Republicans are Bad, and We're Not Republicans, So Vote for Us". No original ideas, no progressive thoughts ... just parlaying the distrust of Republicans into a multi-year paycheck and an office in DC.

Where have the great minds of the Democratic Party gone?

Anyone? Anyone?

Bueller?

[Guest Radagast]

Worst part about this list is that it explains EXACTLY what is wrong with the Democratic Party.  John Stewart of the Daily Show hit it on the head a few months back by stating that we "don't stand for anything".  Bill Maher hinted at the same thing when he said that while he doesn't agree with the Republican agenda, "at least they have one."  Democrats have no agenda. 

The last round of campaigning was on the platform, "Republicans are Bad, and We're Not Republicans, So Vote for Us".  No original ideas, no progressive thoughts ... just parlaying the distrust of Republicans into a multi-year paycheck and an office in DC. 

Where have the great minds of the Democratic Party gone?

Anyone?  Anyone? 

Bueller?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Two quotes from Will Rogers seem appropriate:

"The more you read and observe about this Politics thing, you got to admit that each party is worse than the other. The one that's out always looks the best."

and, of course:

"I belong to no organized party. I am a Democrat."

The problem with the Democratic Party is not a lack of great minds, original ideas and progressive thought. As usual, the problem is there is always too much of the above. The Democratic Party menu has a bit more to choose from that the Republican menu ... not as much as the old days when I started but still more than the other party. One person's 'indecisive' is another person's 'flexable'.

Democrats will never goose step behind a President as the Republicans have done behind Bush for the past seven years... I think that's a good thing.

[Bryan]

Worst part about this list is that it explains EXACTLY what is wrong with the Democratic Party.  John Stewart of the Daily Show hit it on the head a few months back by stating that we "don't stand for anything".  Bill Maher hinted at the same thing when he said that while he doesn't agree with the Republican agenda, "at least they have one."  Democrats have no agenda. 

The last round of campaigning was on the platform, "Republicans are Bad, and We're Not Republicans, So Vote for Us".  No original ideas, no progressive thoughts ... just parlaying the distrust of Republicans into a multi-year paycheck and an office in DC. 

Where have the great minds of the Democratic Party gone?

Anyone?  Anyone? 

Bueller?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

To be fair, I think there are some good minds among the Democratic presidential candidates--but it's true enough that their policy suggestions are mostly things that Americans have rejected. Hillary Clinton is still pushing for the single-payer health plan in the U.S. Why somebody who is (on good authority) intellectually acute would advocate that (other than for the political power it provides over masses dependent on the government for health care) is beyond me.

Barack Obama is certainly bright, but his inexperience shows pretty much every time he makes a policy statement.

All that said, with the possible exceptions of Edwards and Kucinich, every Democratic candidate is step up from John F. Kerry. Their policy ideas stink, and they're incoherent on their Iraq ideas, but the brains are there (at least in theory), and the experience in some cases (Dodd, Richards, Biden).

What would you consider a true "progressive" policy, BTW?

[Bryan]

Democrats will never goose step behind a President as the Republicans have done behind Bush for the past seven years... I think that's a good thing.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You must not have been paying attention.

Bush drew criticism from conservatives right off the bat for cooperating with Democrats on expensive legislation (such as the Kennedy-sponsored "No Child Left Behind").

His nomination of Harriet Miers for the Supreme Court--yeah, lots of goose-stepping there.

His immigration reform ideas? He got most of his support for that from Democrats.

Republicans have mostly united to defend Bush from some of the nonsense charges coming from the left. That's not lock-step support.

Both parties are relatively divided at present. Don't kid yourself.

[Stixx3969]

To be fair, I think there are some good minds among the Democratic presidential candidates--but it's true enough that their policy suggestions are mostly things that Americans have rejected.  Hillary Clinton is still pushing for the single-payer health plan in the U.S.  Why somebody who is (on good authority) intellectually acute would advocate that (other than for the political power it provides over masses dependent on the government for health care) is beyond me.

Barack Obama is certainly bright, but his inexperience shows pretty much every time he makes a policy statement.

All that said, with the possible exceptions of Edwards and Kucinich, every Democratic candidate is step up from John F. Kerry.  Their policy ideas stink, and they're incoherent on their Iraq ideas, but the brains are there (at least in theory), and the experience in some cases (Dodd, Richards, Biden).

What would you consider a true "progressive" policy, BTW?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Obama may be inexperienced as you've said, but then again we've seen where "experience" had gotten us haven't we?

[Bryan]

Obama may be inexperienced as you've said, but then again we've seen where "experience" had gotten us haven't we?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Dow in record territory, and Iraq poised to achieve a constitutional republic if not for the defeatism of Democrats ... did I miss anything?

[Guest Guest]

Dow in record territory, and Iraq poised to achieve a constitutional republic if not for the defeatism of Democrats ... did I miss anything?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yeah, you might have.

[Guest BushBacker]

Dow in record territory, and Iraq poised to achieve a constitutional republic if not for the defeatism of Democrats ... did I miss anything?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Harry Reid, Hilliary, Obama, Kennedy and the rest of the defeatocrats are trying their very best to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Their hate for Bush is stronger than their love for the U.S. Their actions amount to nothing more than legal treason.

Our Revolutionary War lasted 6 years. If the defeatocrats had been in charge, we'd still be under British rule.

[billydee4]

Dow in record territory, and Iraq poised to achieve a constitutional republic if not for the defeatism of Democrats ... did I miss anything?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

"..Iraq poised to achieve a constitutiona republic"? Someone's been watching Faux News too much.

What evidence is there that Iraq is poised to do anything except get more Iraqis and more Americans killed? So far Iraq has failed to meet 10 our of 18 benchmarks. That's progress?

Dick

[Guest Guest]

Dow in record territory, and Iraq poised to achieve a constitutional republic if not for the defeatism of Democrats ... did I miss anything?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yeah, for one thing you missyed the fact[/] that the Dow by itself is meaningless in assessing the economic health of the country.

For another, you mised the fact that Iraq isn't achieving Jack SH*T without a massive injectionof US $$$$$$$$$$$$$ and hand holding.

But, what else could we expect from bind to facts Rthuglicans?

[Guest Guest]

Dow in record territory, and Iraq poised to achieve a constitutional republic if not for the defeatism of Democrats ... did I miss anything?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

We deposed an enemy of al Qaeda at a great cost in blood and money and now have al Qaeda operating in a country where they previously weren't. This is benefitting the US how?

I'd say you missed a lot.

[Bryan]

We deposed an enemy of al Qaeda at a great cost in blood and money and now have al Qaeda operating in a country where they previously weren't.  This is benefitting the US how?

I'd say you missed a lot.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You'll have to point up something I missed someday. Your set of falsehoods doesn't cut it.

The CIA assessed that Hussein would not cooperate with al Qaeda because the Baathists were secularists and al Qaida is radically religious. The CIA also assessed that Saddam's Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. Hussein's government did have intermittent communications with al Qaeda. Al Qaeda is known to have proposed a cooperative deal (I don't recall the details off the top of my head), and Iraq turned them down. That doesn't mean that there weren't other areas where they cooperated. We don't cooperate with France on everything, and we're not exactly enemies.

The notion of Iraq as the enemy of al Qaeda is historical quackery from the political left (and probably an error of judgment by the left-leaning CIA). Hitler rose to power partially on the wings of anti-communist rhetoric, and routinely jailed communists. Then, when he invaded Poland he cut a deal with Stalin to divide up Poland between them. But surely he would never divide up Poland with his enemy!

Sure he would. He wanted to make sure that the Soviets would feel appeased while he carried out an attack on France and Great Britain. After winning the battle in the west (though failing to conquer the Brits), Hitler turned on Stalin.

This method of forming and shifting alliances is well-known throughout the world, even if forgotten at the CIA. There was never any good reason to think that Hussein would not cooperate with al Qaeda to achieve a particular goal (such as striking at the U.S. via terrorism).

None-the-less, it's become a favorite Just-So story of the left.

How does the Iraq War help the United States? I've been over this one before. It helped prompt Libya's divestment of its WMD programs, offers forward deployment in opposition to a belligerent Iran, and provides a path toward the democratization of one of the most politically horrid regions of the world (the Middle East).

That's slipping away, thanks to some poor execution by the Bush administration and thanks to the Democratic commitment to defeat.

When Iraq gets pulled into orbit around Iran, get ready--because war is on its way and once Israel is toast we're probably next. But cheer up! The Dems might do well in the next elections so it won't be a total loss.

[Autonomous]

Harry Reid, Hilliary, Obama, Kennedy and the rest of the defeatocrats are trying their very best to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Their hate for Bush is stronger than their love for the U.S. Their actions amount to nothing more than legal treason.

I really hate this sort of thing. Opposition is not treason. If we manage to win and establish peace in Iraq it will be solely by the courage of the American soldier. The planning for and management of the occupation has been incompetent.

Our Revolutionary War lasted 6 years. If the defeatocrats had been in charge, we'd still be under British rule.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Treaty of Paris-September 1783. 7 years.

[Autonomous]

Dow in record territory, and Iraq poised to achieve a constitutional republic if not for the defeatism of Democrats ... did I miss anything?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If we're using the Dow as a measurement for successful economic policy a simple graph...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closing_miles...ustrial_Average

...would seem to show enormous growth during the Clinton administration and modest growth (except for 9/11 of course) since.

[Guest 2smart4u]

We deposed an enemy of al Qaeda at a great cost in blood and money and now have al Qaeda operating in a country where they previously weren't.  This is benefitting the US how?

I'd say you missed a lot.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Very interesting how the defeatocrats will never acknowledge or even mention the term "world war on terrorism". While al Qaeda attacks are occuring around the globe, Bush is protecting the U.S. while taking the fight to the bad guys "over there". Does that make the defeatocrats happy ? Of course not ! They hate Bush too much to admit he's doing the right thing. What would make the defeatocrats happy ? A nice dirty bomb attack in the U.S. with a large loss of life would cause much glee and "high-fiving" among the defeatocrats. Reed and Pelosi would be in front of the cameras grinning and saying "we told you so", all the while joyfully thinking about how many defeatocratic votes the dirty bomb attack will mean in the next election. Would the defeatocrats care about how many people would die in a dirty bomb attack in this country ? They'd be too busy composing "Hate Bush" speeches and counting their votes to think about that.

[Guest Guest]

Harry Reid, Hilliary, Obama, Kennedy and the rest of the defeatocrats are trying their very best to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Their hate for Bush is stronger than their love for the U.S. Their actions amount to nothing more than legal treason.

  Our Revolutionary War lasted 6 years. If the defeatocrats had been in charge, we'd still be under British rule.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And with the Rethuglicans in charge after more than four years of blood and $$$ they're telling us al Qaeda is in the US and they expect an attack, so we've accomplished exactly what? Making Halliburton profitable?

Only a MORON like you could come up aith the oxymoron 'legal treason'.

[Strife767]

  Our Revolutionary War lasted 6 years. If the defeatocrats had been in charge, we'd still be under British rule.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Wow, you're really drawing a parallel between a direct conflict between two entities (one of which actually is us) where our goal is independence, and being a third party in a civil war in a country that we invaded for no real reason?

[Guest Radagast]

You'll have to point up something I missed someday.  Your set of falsehoods doesn't cut it.

The CIA assessed that Hussein would not cooperate with al Qaeda because the Baathists were secularists and al Qaida is radically religious.  The CIA also assessed that Saddam's Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction.  Hussein's government did have intermittent communications with al Qaeda.  Al Qaeda is known to have proposed a cooperative deal (I don't recall the details off the top of my head), and Iraq turned them down.  That doesn't mean that there weren't other areas where they cooperated.  We don't cooperate with France on everything, and we're not exactly enemies.

The notion of Iraq as the enemy of al Qaeda is historical quackery from the political left (and probably an error of judgment by the left-leaning CIA).  Hitler rose to power partially on the wings of anti-communist rhetoric, and routinely jailed communists.  Then, when he invaded Poland he cut a deal with Stalin to divide up Poland between them.  But surely he would never divide up Poland with his enemy!

Sure he would.  He wanted to make sure that the Soviets would feel appeased while he carried out an attack on France and Great Britain.  After winning the battle in the west (though failing to conquer the Brits), Hitler turned on Stalin.

This method of forming and shifting alliances is well-known throughout the world, even if forgotten at the CIA.  There was never any good reason to think that Hussein would not cooperate with al Qaeda to achieve a particular goal (such as striking at the U.S. via terrorism).

None-the-less, it's become a favorite Just-So story of the left.

How does the Iraq War help the United States?  I've been over this one before.  It helped prompt Libya's divestment of its WMD programs, offers forward deployment in opposition to a belligerent Iran, and provides a path toward the democratization of one of the most politically horrid regions of the world (the Middle East).

That's slipping away, thanks to some poor execution by the Bush administration and thanks to the Democratic commitment to defeat.

When Iraq gets pulled into orbit around Iran, get ready--because war is on its way and once Israel is toast we're probably next.  But cheer up!  The Dems might do well in the next elections so it won't be a total loss.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Bryan,

I'm surprised. That's the weakest post from you I've ever read.

You make a statement about communication between al Qaeda and Saddam that only Cheney believes at this point and go on with the parables about Stalin and Hitler but you don't offer one shred of evidence that al Qaeda and Saddam were cooperating. The fact is, they had no reason to cooperate. They had no reason to trust each other, even a little. How was what happened on 9/11 in Saddam's interest?

Don't you think that there is the slightest possibility that Libya just got tired of being bad boys and being economically boycotted all these years? If anything, Libya makes an argument that had we continued to sanction Iraq, Saddam would have eventually come around. Are you going to tell me that Qaddafi is somehow a better player than Saddam?

Saddam was like a mafia don who controled with an iron fist. Qaddafi was/is no different. Their motivation is power and money, not religion.

IMHO, of course.

[Guest Patriot]

Very interesting how the defeatocrats will never acknowledge or even mention the term "world war on terrorism". While al Qaeda attacks are occuring around the globe, Bush is protecting the U.S. while taking the fight to the bad guys "over there". Does that make the defeatocrats happy ? Of course not ! They hate Bush too much to admit he's doing the right thing.  What would make the defeatocrats happy ?  A nice dirty bomb attack in the U.S. with a large loss of life would cause much glee and "high-fiving" among the defeatocrats. Reed and Pelosi would be in front of the cameras grinning and saying "we told you so", all the while joyfully thinking about how many defeatocratic votes the dirty bomb attack will mean in the next election. Would the defeatocrats care about how many people would die in a dirty bomb attack in this country ? They'd be too busy composing "Hate Bush" speeches and counting their votes to think about that.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Kudos to 2smart4u. That's laying it on the line and telling it like it is,

unfortunately for America.